[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On


Let us adhere to some standards of interpretation
if we wish to reach any conclusion in this conversation.

First of all, primacy must always be given to word of
the Veda.  This is traditional practice, and for good
reason, for only the Veda is apaurusheya, i.e., of 
preter-personal authority.  

Second, the philosophy of Sankara, or any Vaidika
acharya for that matter, should be evaluated based
first and foremost on their undisputed commentaries
and expositions on Vedanta, such as Upanishad and Sutra
bhashyas.  Stotras and other minor works are generally
in the realm of apocrypha.  The traditional attribution
of authorship of minor works may not be accurate.

Third, it is highly misleading to project the practices
of present day smArtas onto Sankara's personal beliefs
and teachings, without sound historical authority.  Would
you say that the Catholic Church of today practices
religion the same was as Jesus taught it?

This having been established as my criteria for evaluating
the philosophy of the ancient acharyas, let me address
your points:

Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:
> Mani Varadarajan wrote:
> 
> > final authority. The final authority must be the eternal Veda
> > itself. What does the Veda say?
> > 
> >         viSvam nArAyaNam devam aksharam paramam prabhum ...
> >         sa brahma sa Siva: sendra so'kshara: paramasvarAt
> > 
> >                         [Taittiriya Aranyaka of the Yajur Veda.]

> 
> Actually I think it says (atleast the one I was taught) 
> 
> sa brahma sa shivaH sa hariH sendraso.akshararaH paramasvaraaT.h

While this does not change the meaning, it is generally
understood that ``sa hariH'' is a later interpolation. 
The proof for this is that the chandas (meter) of the 
verse is destroyed if these words are introduced.

In any event, the import of this anuvAka is that nArAyaNa, 
who is identical with the Purusha of the Purusha sUkta, 
and who is eternally associated with Lakshmi, (hrISca te
lakshmIS ca patnyau) is the Highest Reality.

> vishvam.h naaraayaNam.h devamaksharam.h paramam.h padam.h (not
> prabhum.h, pardon me if I am wrong, this one I am not absolutely sure).

These are acceptable alternatives. Please see the Mahanarayana
Upanishad published by the R.K. Mutt.

> [...] Just because sha.nkara advocates at one place/some places 
> the worship of
> saguNa brahman.h as vishhNu it does not mean he devalues the worship of
> other deities as saguNa brahman.

Sankaracarya, in his undisputed philosophical works, *invariably*
equates saguNa brahman with nArAyaNa, vAsudeva, or hari.  This is
true even when the context does not call for it. Let me cite
a few examples:

	1. gauDapAda kArikA bhashya, alAtaSanti prakaraNa 1.
	2. brhadAraNyaka upanishad bhashya, antaryAmi brAhmaNa
	3. brahma sutra bhashya, utpatty asambhava adhikaraNa
	4. bhagavad gita bhashya, passim, particularly 6.47,
	   where he goes well above and beyond the call of the
	   text and writes like a vIra-vaishnava

Note that I am not relying on apocrypha such as bhaja govindam,
narasimha karavalamba stotram, etc.  The identification of
Brahman with nArAyaNa is found in the highest and deepest 
works of Sankara.  One may ask, why would he do so in such 
unmistakeable terms? Why does he, in the brahma sutra bhashya,
explicitly state that Vasudeva alone is the highest Brahman,
and the Vaishnava practices such as abhigamana, ijyA, etc.,
should be explicitly practiced by a Vedantin?

The answer is simple: because there was (and is) a Vedic predilection 
towards Vaishnavism.

It is no accident that nearly all the Vedanta acharyas were
strict Vaishnavas.  It is also no accident that the Acamanam
(Vedic purification) consists of reciting 12 names (dvAdaSa nAma) 
of Vishnu-nArAyaNa. Furthermore, the traditional Vaishnavism of 
the smArta sampradAya sannyasis is also established by their 
rigorous adherence to saying ``iti nArAyaNa smRti:'' when 
concluding their correspondence and addressing other sannyAsis 
with the greeting ``om namo nArAyaNAya'', a purely Vaishnava 
practice.

In fact, substitution of ``om namo nArAyaNAya'' with the
names of other deities (such as ``om nama: SivAya'') is
explicitly forbidden by the orthodox. [See ``The Ochre Robe'',
by Agehananda Bharati.]

Taking into account all this evidence with an honest
and open mind, it is quite clear that saguNa brahman
of the Upanishads and the Veda is only Vishnu-Narayana.

nArAyaNAya vidmahe vAsudevAya dhImahi
tanno vishnu: pracodayAt

namo nArAyaNAya,
Mani
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.